Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Tej on Judging and the 7-Point System

tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 1:02:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think almost everyone agrees that the 7-point system is just atrocious. Moderation has to remove around 15 votes *everyday,* and of them, at least 13 will be votes on non-argument categories. The sources, S&G and conduct points are just nonsense. But what is even more problematic on the 7-point system is unfair victories due to the other points. There are many voters on the site who don't even *read the debates they vote on.* Let's say the debate has a forfeit -- all these voters (I don't wish to name any, for risk of starting a flame war) just vote on the conduct point without even *bothering* to see the arguments. It annoys me -- and many others -- no end. I'm not going to pretend like I'm innocent. I was guilty of this too -- at least until about 2 months ago. But now I see it as just lazy voting.

Why? Unfair victories. Take this debate, between Debatability and warren42. [http://www.debate.org...] Debatability clearly deserved to win, and, thankfully, she did. She forfeited once, but that doesn't really matter -- her arguments overpowered her opponent's. But here's the catch: there are some voters -- more than 10 of them -- who would vote *just on the forfeit,* awarding only the conduct point. Thankfully no such voter voted on this debate. But if they did, 10 conduct points would go to her opponent, plus the conduct point a good voter would award, so 11 points to Warren42 (assuming one good vote -- there were actually three votes that voted on arguments and were good). And only one of those votes awarded arguments to debatability. But Warren42 wins 11-3 just because of *one forfeit.* The thing is, debatability was meant to *waive* that round. So it just doesn't matter one bit. But still, her opponent wins because -- instead of waiving -- she forfeited. This is just an example.

That's exactly how unfair the 7-point system is. It's a problem with both voters, and -- more importantly -- the system. The voters just vote to get "higher on the vote leaderboard." To no end should any of the points except arguments even matter. If they do, then it's just poor voting, unless the arguments points are *also* voted on (even if a tie, explained). In my opinion, even *tied* arguments points should be explained if any other points are awarded. Only complete ties needn't be explained, and ties on the other points.

Conclusion: don't vote on debates before reading them entirely, and being able to prepare an RFD based on arguments. If you do, it's just lazy voting. You just want to inflate your vote record without even *reading the debate.* You're content because moderation won't remove your vote. Look -- "moderation not removing your vote" does not equal a good vote. Moderation is doing its job, and doing its job very well. We're lucky to have such *amazing* vote moderators as Whiteflame, Bladerunner, F-16, Bluesteel, and Airmax. But moderation removes sufficient votes. When you vote, your goal is to provide valuable feedback -- not sufficient feedback -- because otherwise there's simply no point in voting.

/rant
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 1:08:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Add-on: a note to everyone - *please* stop using the 7-point system. Use the "choose winner" option instead. The choose winner option allows you to know who the objective winner should be. Instead of arbitrarily allocating points to conduct, sources and S&G, judges will actually start *reading* the debates. It also makes moderation's job so much easier. The moment we start doing this, we can be secure -- every time we accept a challenge, the "choose winner" culture will be established, and none of our debates will fall to such votes. It helps everyone: the moderators and us. Everyone benefits.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 4:13:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 1:02:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think almost everyone agrees that the 7-point system is just atrocious. Moderation has to remove around 15 votes *everyday,* and of them, at least 13 will be votes on non-argument categories. The sources, S&G and conduct points are just nonsense. But what is even more problematic on the 7-point system is unfair victories due to the other points. There are many voters on the site who don't even *read the debates they vote on.* Let's say the debate has a forfeit -- all these voters (I don't wish to name any, for risk of starting a flame war) just vote on the conduct point without even *bothering* to see the arguments. It annoys me -- and many others -- no end. I'm not going to pretend like I'm innocent. I was guilty of this too -- at least until about 2 months ago. But now I see it as just lazy voting.

Why? Unfair victories. Take this debate, between Debatability and warren42. [http://www.debate.org...] Debatability clearly deserved to win, and, thankfully, she did. She forfeited once, but that doesn't really matter -- her arguments overpowered her opponent's. But here's the catch: there are some voters -- more than 10 of them -- who would vote *just on the forfeit,* awarding only the conduct point. Thankfully no such voter voted on this debate. But if they did, 10 conduct points would go to her opponent, plus the conduct point a good voter would award, so 11 points to Warren42 (assuming one good vote -- there were actually three votes that voted on arguments and were good). And only one of those votes awarded arguments to debatability. But Warren42 wins 11-3 just because of *one forfeit.* The thing is, debatability was meant to *waive* that round. So it just doesn't matter one bit. But still, her opponent wins because -- instead of waiving -- she forfeited. This is just an example.

The obvious solution here would have been for debatability to write in the comments section "make this select winner and I'll accept."
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 4:16:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
That debate was actually not a good example of this problem but I actually agree with everything you said. Voters popping in to vote conduct is annoying. If they're actually putting in the effort to vote arguments, then by all means go for it, but just to show up and cast a conduct vote, that's not helping anyone.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 5:15:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 1:02:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think almost everyone agrees that the 7-point system is just atrocious. Moderation has to remove around 15 votes *everyday,* and of them, at least 13 will be votes on non-argument categories. The sources, S&G and conduct points are just nonsense.

Is why we only do Arguments and Sources (because only handing out 3 points when others can hand out up to 7 points would devalue our votes... And no one would sign up for that.)

But what is even more problematic on the 7-point system is unfair victories due to the other points. There are many voters on the site who don't even *read the debates they vote on.* Let's say the debate has a forfeit -- all these voters (I don't wish to name any, for risk of starting a flame war) just vote on the conduct point without even *bothering* to see the arguments. It annoys me -- and many others -- no end. I'm not going to pretend like I'm innocent. I was guilty of this too -- at least until about 2 months ago. But now I see it as just lazy voting.

I did this one bsh's debate because Bsh put out arguments and it was over. No rebuttals to go over. But I went through all the rounds on, I think Lannan's? debate despite the ff at the end. Also, vote on my two ff'd debate xD

Add-on: a note to everyone - *please* stop using the 7-point system. Use the "choose winner" option instead. The choose winner option allows you to know who the objective winner should be. Instead of arbitrarily allocating points to conduct, sources and S&G, judges will actually start *reading* the debates. It also makes moderation's job so much easier. The moment we start doing this, we can be secure -- every time we accept a challenge, the "choose winner" culture will be established, and none of our debates will fall to such votes. It helps everyone: the moderators and us. Everyone benefits.

I use the 7-point system, and have in the rules "No S&G or Conduct points."
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 5:25:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 5:15:03 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 10/18/2015 1:02:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think almost everyone agrees that the 7-point system is just atrocious. Moderation has to remove around 15 votes *everyday,* and of them, at least 13 will be votes on non-argument categories. The sources, S&G and conduct points are just nonsense.

Is why we only do Arguments and Sources (because only handing out 3 points when others can hand out up to 7 points would devalue our votes... And no one would sign up for that.)

But what is even more problematic on the 7-point system is unfair victories due to the other points. There are many voters on the site who don't even *read the debates they vote on.* Let's say the debate has a forfeit -- all these voters (I don't wish to name any, for risk of starting a flame war) just vote on the conduct point without even *bothering* to see the arguments. It annoys me -- and many others -- no end. I'm not going to pretend like I'm innocent. I was guilty of this too -- at least until about 2 months ago. But now I see it as just lazy voting.

I did this one bsh's debate because Bsh put out arguments and it was over. No rebuttals to go over. But I went through all the rounds on, I think Lannan's? debate despite the ff at the end. Also, vote on my two ff'd debate xD

Add-on: a note to everyone - *please* stop using the 7-point system. Use the "choose winner" option instead. The choose winner option allows you to know who the objective winner should be. Instead of arbitrarily allocating points to conduct, sources and S&G, judges will actually start *reading* the debates. It also makes moderation's job so much easier. The moment we start doing this, we can be secure -- every time we accept a challenge, the "choose winner" culture will be established, and none of our debates will fall to such votes. It helps everyone: the moderators and us. Everyone benefits.

I use the 7-point system, and have in the rules "No S&G or Conduct points."

But sources constitute the decision in the "choose winner" system.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 5:27:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 1:02:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think almost everyone agrees that the 7-point system is just atrocious. Moderation has to remove around 15 votes *everyday,* and of them, at least 13 will be votes on non-argument categories. The sources, S&G and conduct points are just nonsense. But what is even more problematic on the 7-point system is unfair victories due to the other points. There are many voters on the site who don't even *read the debates they vote on.* Let's say the debate has a forfeit -- all these voters (I don't wish to name any, for risk of starting a flame war) just vote on the conduct point without even *bothering* to see the arguments. It annoys me -- and many others -- no end. I'm not going to pretend like I'm innocent. I was guilty of this too -- at least until about 2 months ago. But now I see it as just lazy voting.

Why? Unfair victories. Take this debate, between Debatability and warren42. [http://www.debate.org...] Debatability clearly deserved to win, and, thankfully, she did. She forfeited once, but that doesn't really matter -- her arguments overpowered her opponent's. But here's the catch: there are some voters -- more than 10 of them -- who would vote *just on the forfeit,* awarding only the conduct point. Thankfully no such voter voted on this debate. But if they did, 10 conduct points would go to her opponent, plus the conduct point a good voter would award, so 11 points to Warren42 (assuming one good vote -- there were actually three votes that voted on arguments and were good). And only one of those votes awarded arguments to debatability. But Warren42 wins 11-3 just because of *one forfeit.* The thing is, debatability was meant to *waive* that round. So it just doesn't matter one bit. But still, her opponent wins because -- instead of waiving -- she forfeited. This is just an example.

That's exactly how unfair the 7-point system is. It's a problem with both voters, and -- more importantly -- the system. The voters just vote to get "higher on the vote leaderboard." To no end should any of the points except arguments even matter. If they do, then it's just poor voting, unless the arguments points are *also* voted on (even if a tie, explained). In my opinion, even *tied* arguments points should be explained if any other points are awarded. Only complete ties needn't be explained, and ties on the other points.

Conclusion: don't vote on debates before reading them entirely, and being able to prepare an RFD based on arguments. If you do, it's just lazy voting. You just want to inflate your vote record without even *reading the debate.* You're content because moderation won't remove your vote. Look -- "moderation not removing your vote" does not equal a good vote. Moderation is doing its job, and doing its job very well. We're lucky to have such *amazing* vote moderators as Whiteflame, Bladerunner, F-16, Bluesteel, and Airmax. But moderation removes sufficient votes. When you vote, your goal is to provide valuable feedback -- not sufficient feedback -- because otherwise there's simply no point in voting.

/rant

I shall stop doing that from now on, thank you.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 5:34:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 5:25:20 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 10/18/2015 5:15:03 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 10/18/2015 1:02:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think almost everyone agrees that the 7-point system is just atrocious. Moderation has to remove around 15 votes *everyday,* and of them, at least 13 will be votes on non-argument categories. The sources, S&G and conduct points are just nonsense.

Is why we only do Arguments and Sources (because only handing out 3 points when others can hand out up to 7 points would devalue our votes... And no one would sign up for that.)

But what is even more problematic on the 7-point system is unfair victories due to the other points. There are many voters on the site who don't even *read the debates they vote on.* Let's say the debate has a forfeit -- all these voters (I don't wish to name any, for risk of starting a flame war) just vote on the conduct point without even *bothering* to see the arguments. It annoys me -- and many others -- no end. I'm not going to pretend like I'm innocent. I was guilty of this too -- at least until about 2 months ago. But now I see it as just lazy voting.

I did this one bsh's debate because Bsh put out arguments and it was over. No rebuttals to go over. But I went through all the rounds on, I think Lannan's? debate despite the ff at the end. Also, vote on my two ff'd debate xD

Add-on: a note to everyone - *please* stop using the 7-point system. Use the "choose winner" option instead. The choose winner option allows you to know who the objective winner should be. Instead of arbitrarily allocating points to conduct, sources and S&G, judges will actually start *reading* the debates. It also makes moderation's job so much easier. The moment we start doing this, we can be secure -- every time we accept a challenge, the "choose winner" culture will be established, and none of our debates will fall to such votes. It helps everyone: the moderators and us. Everyone benefits.

I use the 7-point system, and have in the rules "No S&G or Conduct points."

But sources constitute the decision in the "choose winner" system.

I like the flexibility. There's more than one level of winning. If you had better arguments, you'd still win (3 points v 2) but if you had empirical backing for your claims, blowing your opponents sources out of the water, you get 5 points for having largely better and more well defended arguments. It's not win or lose...You can win, but only by a little because you made better claims, but didn't source them well, and so on.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Stefanwaal
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 6:09:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As I see it the problem isn't the 7-point system. The problem lies with the voters.
The biggest problem appears to be that voters don't read the debate well or not at all. This won't get solved with the "Choose winner" system, since people can still say that one person deserves to win, because the other one forfeited once. Adding a rule to not assign points based on S&G and conduct is better, but I doubt it's good enough.

I suggest the following. Start by moving the vote box to the bottom of the debate. That way voters are encouraged to read the debate before they vote. But this is not everything. I suspect it would be better if the vote box looked like this:
http://www.debate.org...
Sorry it doesn't look very pretty.

The first thing I would change is that people should give reasons for their votes per individual item. Not one for everything at the end. Every box should also have a "minimum amount of characters (or words)". The ones for S&P, conduct and sources should have a minimum of 20 characters, the one for arguments a minimum of 80 characters. It's obviously possible to discuss about the exact count.

The second thing is that I'm not sure it's good that people always have to give the whole 3 points for arguments and the whole 2 points for sources. If one person has good arguments and the other slightly better arguments it's maybe more fair to give the person with the slightly better arguments only 1 or 2 points for his arguments. With this system it's maybe also possible to allow people to give a maximum of 4 points for arguments.

Anyway, I'm curious what you think of these ideas.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 6:11:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I had an idea where the debaters could make their own. They can adds categories, and points for them, etc, to fit what they believe is best. It'd also let them customize the system per debate, to best match the debate (a Story-telling debate would have a different system from a Policy debate, and so on)
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 6:30:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here's my guide to voting on the 7-point system: https://docs.google.com...

Generally, I agree with what Tej notes.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 7:02:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 1:02:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think almost everyone agrees that the 7-point system is just atrocious. Moderation has to remove around 15 votes *every day,*

Fix'd
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 7:07:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 6:11:44 PM, donald.keller wrote:
I had an idea where the debaters could make their own. They can adds categories, and points for them, etc, to fit what they believe is best. It'd also let them customize the system per debate, to best match the debate (a Story-telling debate would have a different system from a Policy debate, and so on)

... yeah, that would be difficult. Although, it would be good if they could do that for certain types of debates. For example: on opinion related debates, there shouldn't be a sources point since it is an opinion debate.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 7:16:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 1:02:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think almost everyone agrees that the 7-point system is just atrocious. Moderation has to remove around 15 votes *everyday,* and of them, at least 13 will be votes on non-argument categories. The sources, S&G and conduct points are just nonsense. But what is even more problematic on the 7-point system is unfair victories due to the other points. There are many voters on the site who don't even *read the debates they vote on.* Let's say the debate has a forfeit -- all these voters (I don't wish to name any, for risk of starting a flame war) just vote on the conduct point without even *bothering* to see the arguments. It annoys me -- and many others -- no end. I'm not going to pretend like I'm innocent. I was guilty of this too -- at least until about 2 months ago. But now I see it as just lazy voting.

Why? Unfair victories. Take this debate, between Debatability and warren42. [http://www.debate.org...] Debatability clearly deserved to win, and, thankfully, she did. She forfeited once, but that doesn't really matter -- her arguments overpowered her opponent's. But here's the catch: there are some voters -- more than 10 of them -- who would vote *just on the forfeit,* awarding only the conduct point. Thankfully no such voter voted on this debate. But if they did, 10 conduct points would go to her opponent, plus the conduct point a good voter would award, so 11 points to Warren42 (assuming one good vote -- there were actually three votes that voted on arguments and were good). And only one of those votes awarded arguments to debatability. But Warren42 wins 11-3 just because of *one forfeit.* The thing is, debatability was meant to *waive* that round. So it just doesn't matter one bit. But still, her opponent wins because -- instead of waiving -- she forfeited. This is just an example.

That's exactly how unfair the 7-point system is. It's a problem with both voters, and -- more importantly -- the system. The voters just vote to get "higher on the vote leaderboard." To no end should any of the points except arguments even matter. If they do, then it's just poor voting, unless the arguments points are *also* voted on (even if a tie, explained). In my opinion, even *tied* arguments points should be explained if any other points are awarded. Only complete ties needn't be explained, and ties on the other points.

Conclusion: don't vote on debates before reading them entirely, and being able to prepare an RFD based on arguments. If you do, it's just lazy voting. You just want to inflate your vote record without even *reading the debate.* You're content because moderation won't remove your vote. Look -- "moderation not removing your vote" does not equal a good vote. Moderation is doing its job, and doing its job very well. We're lucky to have such *amazing* vote moderators as Whiteflame, Bladerunner, F-16, Bluesteel, and Airmax. But moderation removes sufficient votes. When you vote, your goal is to provide valuable feedback -- not sufficient feedback -- because otherwise there's simply no point in voting.

/rant

I have been on an extended voting break. I don't want to write a page somewhere to juatify every point given, and still have it start bickering.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 7:47:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 1:02:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
It annoys me -- and many others -- no end.

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net...
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
KingofEverything
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 10:12:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 1:02:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think almost everyone agrees that the 7-point system is just atrocious. Moderation has to remove around 15 votes *everyday,* and of them, at least 13 will be votes on non-argument categories. The sources, S&G and conduct points are just nonsense. But what is even more problematic on the 7-point system is unfair victories due to the other points. There are many voters on the site who don't even *read the debates they vote on.* Let's say the debate has a forfeit -- all these voters (I don't wish to name any, for risk of starting a flame war) just vote on the conduct point without even *bothering* to see the arguments. It annoys me -- and many others -- no end. I'm not going to pretend like I'm innocent. I was guilty of this too -- at least until about 2 months ago. But now I see it as just lazy voting.

Why? Unfair victories. Take this debate, between Debatability and warren42. [http://www.debate.org...] Debatability clearly deserved to win, and, thankfully, she did. She forfeited once, but that doesn't really matter -- her arguments overpowered her opponent's. But here's the catch: there are some voters -- more than 10 of them -- who would vote *just on the forfeit,* awarding only the conduct point. Thankfully no such voter voted on this debate. But if they did, 10 conduct points would go to her opponent, plus the conduct point a good voter would award, so 11 points to Warren42 (assuming one good vote -- there were actually three votes that voted on arguments and were good). And only one of those votes awarded arguments to debatability. But Warren42 wins 11-3 just because of *one forfeit.* The thing is, debatability was meant to *waive* that round. So it just doesn't matter one bit. But still, her opponent wins because -- instead of waiving -- she forfeited. This is just an example.

That's exactly how unfair the 7-point system is. It's a problem with both voters, and -- more importantly -- the system. The voters just vote to get "higher on the vote leaderboard." To no end should any of the points except arguments even matter. If they do, then it's just poor voting, unless the arguments points are *also* voted on (even if a tie, explained). In my opinion, even *tied* arguments points should be explained if any other points are awarded. Only complete ties needn't be explained, and ties on the other points.

Conclusion: don't vote on debates before reading them entirely, and being able to prepare an RFD based on arguments. If you do, it's just lazy voting. You just want to inflate your vote record without even *reading the debate.* You're content because moderation won't remove your vote. Look -- "moderation not removing your vote" does not equal a good vote. Moderation is doing its job, and doing its job very well. We're lucky to have such *amazing* vote moderators as Whiteflame, Bladerunner, F-16, Bluesteel, and Airmax. But moderation removes sufficient votes. When you vote, your goal is to provide valuable feedback -- not sufficient feedback -- because otherwise there's simply no point in voting.

/rant

Hopefully that changes.
You're sweet. Thank you :) <3 -ESocial

I am sorry Debate.org -KingofEverything

You guys can stop the circlejerk started around the election. It stopped being funny faster than Mirza's anti-American rants. -Jonbonbon

It's like when the kid who makes an ugly sand castle on the beach goes and tries to kick down someone else's sand castle because he couldn't make one as good as that. -YYW
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 1:50:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 1:02:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think almost everyone agrees that the 7-point system is just atrocious. Moderation has to remove around 15 votes *everyday,* and of them, at least 13 will be votes on non-argument categories. The sources, S&G and conduct points are just nonsense. But what is even more problematic on the 7-point system is unfair victories due to the other points. There are many voters on the site who don't even *read the debates they vote on.* Let's say the debate has a forfeit -- all these voters (I don't wish to name any, for risk of starting a flame war) just vote on the conduct point without even *bothering* to see the arguments. It annoys me -- and many others -- no end. I'm not going to pretend like I'm innocent. I was guilty of this too -- at least until about 2 months ago. But now I see it as just lazy voting.

Why? Unfair victories. Take this debate, between Debatability and warren42. [http://www.debate.org...] Debatability clearly deserved to win, and, thankfully, she did. She forfeited once, but that doesn't really matter -- her arguments overpowered her opponent's. But here's the catch: there are some voters -- more than 10 of them -- who would vote *just on the forfeit,* awarding only the conduct point. Thankfully no such voter voted on this debate. But if they did, 10 conduct points would go to her opponent, plus the conduct point a good voter would award, so 11 points to Warren42 (assuming one good vote -- there were actually three votes that voted on arguments and were good). And only one of those votes awarded arguments to debatability. But Warren42 wins 11-3 just because of *one forfeit.* The thing is, debatability was meant to *waive* that round. So it just doesn't matter one bit. But still, her opponent wins because -- instead of waiving -- she forfeited. This is just an example.

That's exactly how unfair the 7-point system is. It's a problem with both voters, and -- more importantly -- the system. The voters just vote to get "higher on the vote leaderboard." To no end should any of the points except arguments even matter. If they do, then it's just poor voting, unless the arguments points are *also* voted on (even if a tie, explained). In my opinion, even *tied* arguments points should be explained if any other points are awarded. Only complete ties needn't be explained, and ties on the other points.

Conclusion: don't vote on debates before reading them entirely, and being able to prepare an RFD based on arguments. If you do, it's just lazy voting. You just want to inflate your vote record without even *reading the debate.* You're content because moderation won't remove your vote. Look -- "moderation not removing your vote" does not equal a good vote. Moderation is doing its job, and doing its job very well. We're lucky to have such *amazing* vote moderators as Whiteflame, Bladerunner, F-16, Bluesteel, and Airmax. But moderation removes sufficient votes. When you vote, your goal is to provide valuable feedback -- not sufficient feedback -- because otherwise there's simply no point in voting.

/rant

I totally agree +1

The site has a huuuge 'new person' turnover rate. People come and go all of the time, leaving only 1 debate or half of a debate. This is probably why so many people have gotten in the habit of just putting ff and voting only on conduct. This makes sense if the person doesn't argue at all, however if the person does in fact argue, I don't believe we should be able to just vote on that, racking up points and letting someone win just because they are too lazy to read the actual debate and think.
KingofEverything
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 6:53:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 1:02:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think almost everyone agrees that the 7-point system is just atrocious. Moderation has to remove around 15 votes *everyday,* and of them, at least 13 will be votes on non-argument categories. The sources, S&G and conduct points are just nonsense. But what is even more problematic on the 7-point system is unfair victories due to the other points. There are many voters on the site who don't even *read the debates they vote on.* Let's say the debate has a forfeit -- all these voters (I don't wish to name any, for risk of starting a flame war) just vote on the conduct point without even *bothering* to see the arguments. It annoys me -- and many others -- no end. I'm not going to pretend like I'm innocent. I was guilty of this too -- at least until about 2 months ago. But now I see it as just lazy voting.

Why? Unfair victories. Take this debate, between Debatability and warren42. [http://www.debate.org...] Debatability clearly deserved to win, and, thankfully, she did. She forfeited once, but that doesn't really matter -- her arguments overpowered her opponent's. But here's the catch: there are some voters -- more than 10 of them -- who would vote *just on the forfeit,* awarding only the conduct point. Thankfully no such voter voted on this debate. But if they did, 10 conduct points would go to her opponent, plus the conduct point a good voter would award, so 11 points to Warren42 (assuming one good vote -- there were actually three votes that voted on arguments and were good). And only one of those votes awarded arguments to debatability. But Warren42 wins 11-3 just because of *one forfeit.* The thing is, debatability was meant to *waive* that round. So it just doesn't matter one bit. But still, her opponent wins because -- instead of waiving -- she forfeited. This is just an example.

That's exactly how unfair the 7-point system is. It's a problem with both voters, and -- more importantly -- the system. The voters just vote to get "higher on the vote leaderboard." To no end should any of the points except arguments even matter. If they do, then it's just poor voting, unless the arguments points are *also* voted on (even if a tie, explained). In my opinion, even *tied* arguments points should be explained if any other points are awarded. Only complete ties needn't be explained, and ties on the other points.

Conclusion: don't vote on debates before reading them entirely, and being able to prepare an RFD based on arguments. If you do, it's just lazy voting. You just want to inflate your vote record without even *reading the debate.* You're content because moderation won't remove your vote. Look -- "moderation not removing your vote" does not equal a good vote. Moderation is doing its job, and doing its job very well. We're lucky to have such *amazing* vote moderators as Whiteflame, Bladerunner, F-16, Bluesteel, and Airmax. But moderation removes sufficient votes. When you vote, your goal is to provide valuable feedback -- not sufficient feedback -- because otherwise there's simply no point in voting.

/rant

I found a flaw in what you said. What if people type "ff" on the Choose Winner system? Instead of 1, that's SEVEN points against you.
You're sweet. Thank you :) <3 -ESocial

I am sorry Debate.org -KingofEverything

You guys can stop the circlejerk started around the election. It stopped being funny faster than Mirza's anti-American rants. -Jonbonbon

It's like when the kid who makes an ugly sand castle on the beach goes and tries to kick down someone else's sand castle because he couldn't make one as good as that. -YYW
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 7:00:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 6:53:44 PM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 10/18/2015 1:02:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think almost everyone agrees that the 7-point system is just atrocious. Moderation has to remove around 15 votes *everyday,* and of them, at least 13 will be votes on non-argument categories. The sources, S&G and conduct points are just nonsense. But what is even more problematic on the 7-point system is unfair victories due to the other points. There are many voters on the site who don't even *read the debates they vote on.* Let's say the debate has a forfeit -- all these voters (I don't wish to name any, for risk of starting a flame war) just vote on the conduct point without even *bothering* to see the arguments. It annoys me -- and many others -- no end. I'm not going to pretend like I'm innocent. I was guilty of this too -- at least until about 2 months ago. But now I see it as just lazy voting.

Why? Unfair victories. Take this debate, between Debatability and warren42. [http://www.debate.org...] Debatability clearly deserved to win, and, thankfully, she did. She forfeited once, but that doesn't really matter -- her arguments overpowered her opponent's. But here's the catch: there are some voters -- more than 10 of them -- who would vote *just on the forfeit,* awarding only the conduct point. Thankfully no such voter voted on this debate. But if they did, 10 conduct points would go to her opponent, plus the conduct point a good voter would award, so 11 points to Warren42 (assuming one good vote -- there were actually three votes that voted on arguments and were good). And only one of those votes awarded arguments to debatability. But Warren42 wins 11-3 just because of *one forfeit.* The thing is, debatability was meant to *waive* that round. So it just doesn't matter one bit. But still, her opponent wins because -- instead of waiving -- she forfeited. This is just an example.

That's exactly how unfair the 7-point system is. It's a problem with both voters, and -- more importantly -- the system. The voters just vote to get "higher on the vote leaderboard." To no end should any of the points except arguments even matter. If they do, then it's just poor voting, unless the arguments points are *also* voted on (even if a tie, explained). In my opinion, even *tied* arguments points should be explained if any other points are awarded. Only complete ties needn't be explained, and ties on the other points.

Conclusion: don't vote on debates before reading them entirely, and being able to prepare an RFD based on arguments. If you do, it's just lazy voting. You just want to inflate your vote record without even *reading the debate.* You're content because moderation won't remove your vote. Look -- "moderation not removing your vote" does not equal a good vote. Moderation is doing its job, and doing its job very well. We're lucky to have such *amazing* vote moderators as Whiteflame, Bladerunner, F-16, Bluesteel, and Airmax. But moderation removes sufficient votes. When you vote, your goal is to provide valuable feedback -- not sufficient feedback -- because otherwise there's simply no point in voting.

/rant

I found a flaw in what you said. What if people type "ff" on the Choose Winner system? Instead of 1, that's SEVEN points against you.

Unless it was a situation in which one person forfeited the entire debate while the other provided a counter argument and posted every round at least carrying their arguments, it could be removed as a vote bomb or insufficient RFD.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
KingofEverything
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 7:02:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 7:00:16 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 10/21/2015 6:53:44 PM, KingofEverything wrote:
At 10/18/2015 1:02:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
I think almost everyone agrees that the 7-point system is just atrocious. Moderation has to remove around 15 votes *everyday,* and of them, at least 13 will be votes on non-argument categories. The sources, S&G and conduct points are just nonsense. But what is even more problematic on the 7-point system is unfair victories due to the other points. There are many voters on the site who don't even *read the debates they vote on.* Let's say the debate has a forfeit -- all these voters (I don't wish to name any, for risk of starting a flame war) just vote on the conduct point without even *bothering* to see the arguments. It annoys me -- and many others -- no end. I'm not going to pretend like I'm innocent. I was guilty of this too -- at least until about 2 months ago. But now I see it as just lazy voting.

Why? Unfair victories. Take this debate, between Debatability and warren42. [http://www.debate.org...] Debatability clearly deserved to win, and, thankfully, she did. She forfeited once, but that doesn't really matter -- her arguments overpowered her opponent's. But here's the catch: there are some voters -- more than 10 of them -- who would vote *just on the forfeit,* awarding only the conduct point. Thankfully no such voter voted on this debate. But if they did, 10 conduct points would go to her opponent, plus the conduct point a good voter would award, so 11 points to Warren42 (assuming one good vote -- there were actually three votes that voted on arguments and were good). And only one of those votes awarded arguments to debatability. But Warren42 wins 11-3 just because of *one forfeit.* The thing is, debatability was meant to *waive* that round. So it just doesn't matter one bit. But still, her opponent wins because -- instead of waiving -- she forfeited. This is just an example.

That's exactly how unfair the 7-point system is. It's a problem with both voters, and -- more importantly -- the system. The voters just vote to get "higher on the vote leaderboard." To no end should any of the points except arguments even matter. If they do, then it's just poor voting, unless the arguments points are *also* voted on (even if a tie, explained). In my opinion, even *tied* arguments points should be explained if any other points are awarded. Only complete ties needn't be explained, and ties on the other points.

Conclusion: don't vote on debates before reading them entirely, and being able to prepare an RFD based on arguments. If you do, it's just lazy voting. You just want to inflate your vote record without even *reading the debate.* You're content because moderation won't remove your vote. Look -- "moderation not removing your vote" does not equal a good vote. Moderation is doing its job, and doing its job very well. We're lucky to have such *amazing* vote moderators as Whiteflame, Bladerunner, F-16, Bluesteel, and Airmax. But moderation removes sufficient votes. When you vote, your goal is to provide valuable feedback -- not sufficient feedback -- because otherwise there's simply no point in voting.

/rant

I found a flaw in what you said. What if people type "ff" on the Choose Winner system? Instead of 1, that's SEVEN points against you.

Unless it was a situation in which one person forfeited the entire debate while the other provided a counter argument and posted every round at least carrying their arguments, it could be removed as a vote bomb or insufficient RFD.

Awesome.
You're sweet. Thank you :) <3 -ESocial

I am sorry Debate.org -KingofEverything

You guys can stop the circlejerk started around the election. It stopped being funny faster than Mirza's anti-American rants. -Jonbonbon

It's like when the kid who makes an ugly sand castle on the beach goes and tries to kick down someone else's sand castle because he couldn't make one as good as that. -YYW
KingofEverything
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 7:03:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why is his account deactivated?
You're sweet. Thank you :) <3 -ESocial

I am sorry Debate.org -KingofEverything

You guys can stop the circlejerk started around the election. It stopped being funny faster than Mirza's anti-American rants. -Jonbonbon

It's like when the kid who makes an ugly sand castle on the beach goes and tries to kick down someone else's sand castle because he couldn't make one as good as that. -YYW
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 7:36:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 7:03:03 PM, KingofEverything wrote:
Why is his account deactivated?

Probably school related.

He didn't tell me though.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...